12/13/2001 12:50pm Thursday Thanks --- I do appreciate it.
Richard // ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have her book (second edition) and I think she agrees with John. She says > this about the LES: > > LES: The node that keeps the mapping from MAC address to ATM address. A LEC > registers its own (MAC, ATM) address with the LES and finds out the ATM > address of other LECs by asking the LES. A LES supports one ELAN. A LES > maintains a point-to-multipoint VC from itself to all LECs in the ELAN. > > (She doesn't say that the LES sits in the middle between LEC conversations). > > On the next page, she gets into the rest of the story and says "the LEC > asks the LES for the ATM address corresponding to layer 2 address D. When > it finds out (from the LES), the LEC establishes a VC to that ATM address, > and future packets for D are forwarded over that VC. > > To send a multicast (or broadcast), the LEC must find the ATM address of > the BUS. It finds that by asking the LES for the ATM address of > FFFFFFFFFFFF. The LEC then establishes a VC to the BUS.... When a LEC sends > it a packet to multicast, the BUS retransmits the packet onto the > point-to-multipoint VC. > > In other words, Radia agrees with all the other experts. Not a big surprise > there! ;-) > > Priscilla > > At 10:36 AM 12/13/01, John Neiberger wrote: > >I don't have her book available so I can't comment directly on the > >content. However, read through the following document: > > > >http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/swit ch_c/xcprt7/xcovlane.htm > > > > > >What out for line wrap on that one. > > > >You can see that once the LEC has resolved the address of the remote > >LEC to which it wants to communicate, a bi-directional data direct VCC > >is setup and all data flow *directly* between the two LANE clients. The > >LES gets involved when a LEC wants to join an ELAN and when address > >resolution is required. Beyond that it doesn't do much. > > > >Regards, > >John > > > > >>> "nettable_walker" 12/13/01 7:14:12 AM > > >>> > >12/13/2001 8:15am Thursday > > > >I am really stumped --- Radia Perlman's book seem to say the oposite of > >what > >you are saying --- page 289 > > > > > > HELP !!! > > > > > > > >""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > No. Once SVCs are setup between the LECs, traffic flows > > > directly between them without the use of the LES. The LES > > > facilitates the initial connections but is not involved in the > > > traffic flow after the end-to-end SVC is in place. > > > > > > I think. :-) You may want to double check that answer. It's > > > been a while since I've even thought about LANE. > > > > > > Regards, > > > John > > > > > > ---- On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, nettable_walker > > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > > > 12/12/2001 10:45pm Wednesday > > > > > > > > Professionals, > > > > > > > > Is the LES a transit point for all traffic between LEC's ? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > // > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > Get your own "800" number > > > Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more > > > http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag > ________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29114&t=29114 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
